UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6941

RICKY WILLARD LOWERY,

Petitioner Appellant,
v.
WARDEN MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (9:09-cv-02352-CMC)

Submitted:

November 30, 2010

Decided:

December 7, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Willard Lowery, Appellant Pro Se.

Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters,
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Ricky
courts
judge

order
and

judge

the

relief

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

on

his

28

of

U.S.C.

the
the

district

magistrate

2254

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

issues

certificate

2253(c)(1) (2006).
issue

Lowery

accepting

denying

petition.
or

Willard

absent

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000);

Cockrell,

(2003).

see Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
529 U.S. at 484-85.

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Lowery has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED